Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
Actually it was her compliance or agreement to have uncut hair
Her compliance to have uncut hair specifically, not her submission or compliance but her compliance to HAVE UNCUT HAIR. Having said that, the part about it some how advocates for the church community is a false doctrine and a dangerous one. It puts our advocate in a woman who is complying when our advocate is Jesus alone because HE alone died for our sins. It focuses attention NOT on Jesus but on a woman complying to have uncut hair.
|
I disagree here. I think the "compliance" is with scriptural admonitions, which in itself proves submission and obedience. But we'll keep going around this circle not making it very far...
As far as the woman advocating, LS does not making the case that she is advcocating in the place of Christ, or for the same purpose Christ does. "Advocating" was the word I used to describe LS's statement. Intercede would also be an applicable word, one you may not be as averse to. Women AND men who are submissive to God's authority in their lives, unuquely intercede on behalf of the Christian community in ways the other gender cannot. In this particular sermon, LS emphasises the intercession that is unique to the woman. You could say that
Heb 5:9 focuses attention on "obedience" instead of Christ as well... but the issue is still obedience, whether it's uncut hair, or being "keepers at home", or "keeping silent in the Church", not "teaching or usurping authority over the man", and "honoring their husbands". These are unique ways that women show their submission, that a man cannot do. These are unique roles women play in the community of believers, that men cannot fill. This is the theme, IMO, of LS' statements in this regard.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
Again correcting you because of her compliance to have uncut hair, but that is beside the point. This is FALSE DOCTRINE. The bible does NOT say if she complies to have uncut hair she has a unique access to divine wisdom and insige and authorityu in the angelic realm, particularly one that man can not receive. That is a false doctrine.
|
A woman's compliance to have uncut hair, is akin to individual compliance to proper gender roles within the church. It is a submission issue, however you want to frame it. You cannot seperate compliance to have uncut hair from the principle of submission. In the context of
1 Cor 11, the two are inextricable. Uncut hair IS submission for women, and short hair IS submission for men... yes these are emblems that indicate submission, but again, in this context, you cannot seperate the principle from it's most immedate application, which Paul himself ties together in the text of
1 Cor 11:4-16.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
Further more it obliterates the whole point Paul is making about headship and order of creation. Man first, woman second. Man the image and glory of God and woman the glory of man. For THIS reason the woman ought to have authority ON her head. It does not say "She is given authority" let alone one that man does not have or can have.,
|
I do not agree with you here that LS's position "obliterates" the whole point Paul is making about headship. Non-sequitor.... In fact, I think LS's position develops Paul's point about headship quite nicely. Headship IS about authority in the spirit realm. Immediately following his development about headship, Paul begins to describe and explain the gifts we, who are submitted to His authority, have in the spirit realm. Thus we have
1 Cor 12, 13, and 14, all about the gifts of the Spirit.
"She is given authority that man cannot have", IMO, is akin to saying there are "roles in the community that women can fulfill, that men cannot". It's just a fact. Both genders occupy special places in God's plan and purpose that the other gender cannot fulfill. Men hold positions of leadership and influence in the Church that women cannot have. They have Christ as their head, where the woman has only her man as her head... the unique access clause is inclusive of both men and women, in different ways. I see no problem with this statement when taken in the context of other fundamental truths that we know.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Praxeas
That is right. That is what we said! That is what we HAVE BEEN SAYING and THAT my friend is false doctrine.
|
You mean we can really be friends now?
Threaded Mode
